Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Koen

M60A3 (TTS) vs T-62

91 posts in this topic

Of course, what if funny, majority of WarPact countries after testing T-62 said "well yeah, you know it's a junk, can we please get something better?".

 

Or at least that thing happend in Poland, same with IS-3... actually we still have IS-3's (2) that we got for tests, tests results were... interesting, so interesting in the end we purchased more IS-2's. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I've got an M60A3 related question here...

 

I understand the M60A3 TTS.  I beleive that I understand the M60, M60A1, M60A1 RISE, and the RISE Passive...But, was anyone here ever a crewman on an M60A3 Passive?  I understand that before the M60A3 TTS, there was an M60A3 Passive still utilizing the passive elbow night sights of the A1 Passive.

 

My question is how integrated, if at all, was the A3's fire control system into the passive night sight system?  Although I had posted before about being able to get an A1 Rise/Passive in game, if the A3 Passive is as simple as changing the night vision mode only...That makes it very similar to an A1 Rise/Passive for cold war scenarios, right?

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Marko said:

I have also read the T-62 cost considerable more to produce then the T--55

So much more some said the marginally better performance of the gun was not worth the expense.

 

In terms of production costs T-55A and T-62 are  more or less equal. As for unit replacement cost- here real fun  begins; T-62 is about  1/8 cheaper than T-55A(in  1995  prices). As for performance-  transition to 115mm  gun was only cost-effective solution in late 50s-early 60s timeframe. Also keep in mind that Obj.166 was a  tank destroyer(it appears that nomenclature was  changed only  during type standardization) designed to supplement(and not to substitute) regular medium tanks.

Edited by Jartsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the tank costs in Soviet Union were, hmmm sometimes strange, for example T-64 was cheaper than T-72 even tough T-72 was designed as cheaper and "simpler" mobilization tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jartsev said:

In terms of production costs T-55A and T-62 are  more or less equal. As for unit replacement cost- here real fun  begins; T-62 is about  1/8 cheaper than T-55A(in  1995  prices). As for performance-  transition to 115mm  gun was only cost-effective solution in late 50s-early 60s timeframe. Also keep in mind that Obj.166 was a  tank destroyer(it appears that nomenclature was  changed only  during type standardization) designed to supplement(and not to substitute) regular medium tanks.

 

yes... in 1995 price.but not in back in 1960s at the height of its production.

 

back then T62 was indeed twice the cost of a T55.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Yes the tank costs in Soviet Union were, hmmm sometimes strange, for example T-64 was cheaper than T-72 even tough T-72 was designed as cheaper and "simpler" mobilization tank.

maybe by todays prices T64 is cheaper to purchase by unit, but not back then.

 

 T72 Ural was most certainly cheaper at the time of its introduction than the T64A. unlike the T64 the T72 wasn't plagued with issues with its engine. its why the T64 wasnt deployed to East Germany until 1970- 1971 only when the teething  issues were ironed with was it deemed combat effective enough to be placed right at front lines.

 

when looking at prices you also need to keep in mind to look at the model in comparison, not just price based on year.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2016 at 4:41 PM, Iarmor said:

 

If the subject interests you, I recommend to try and get the English version (if it's already available) of "The Wars of Modern Babylon: The Rise and Fall of the Iraqi Army" book by Pesach Malovany.

I believe that Malovany contributed some knowledge to the "The Iran-Iraq War" book as well.

 

 

cost of tanks in rubles and dates:

 

 

T-64 230880 (1966)

 

tanks without ATGM: 
T-64A 249033  (first verison 1967 upgraded several times in 1969 1972 1975 and 1981)

T-72A 337247 (1978) equivalent  to late 1981 T-64A

 

here cost is clearly lower on T-64A, although what version of T-64A is unclear. 

late T-64A has same FCS as T-72A, TPD-K1.

 

tanks with ATGM:

T-64B 512737 (first version in 1975 upgraded in 1981)

T-64BV 536028 (1985)

T-72B 421200 (1985)

T-80B 826800(1978)

T-64B and T-80B have identical turrets, with only differences in stowage layout and cupola(T-80B has cheaper(!) unpowered cupola, T-64B has powered cupola with AA sight.)
yet russian-built T-80B is nearly twice as expensive. (thanks to expensive hull with turbine)


as for T-72B, it has drastically lower-quality FCS compared to T-64B. 

T-64B has 1G42 optics which are fully stabilized, has variable magnification between 4x-9x, missile guidance built into the main sight, has wind sensor, cant sensor, dynamic lead.. 

pretty much all of the fancy stuff you expect to find in a modern western battle tank save the thermal sight and MRS. 

meanwhile T-72B FCS is barely an upgrade over the one in T-72M1/A with a bolted on dynamic lead system, and new 1K13 sight for the missile. 

autoloader in T-64B is also superior to T-72B having an option for rotating both directions, loading faster, and holding 28 instead of 22 rounds as in T-72B. 

missile of T-72B is inferior as well. Svir only has a range of 4000m, while refleks has a range of 5000m. 

 

so T-72B is 80% of the price of a T-64BV, but is quite inferior in many ways. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

9 hours ago, Kev2go said:

maybe by todays prices T64 is cheaper to purchase by unit, but not back then.

 

 T72 Ural was most certainly cheaper at the time of its introduction than the T64A. unlike the T64 the T72 wasn't plagued with issues with its engine. its why the T64 wasnt deployed to East Germany until 1970- 1971 only when the teething  issues were ironed with was it deemed combat effective enough to be placed right at front lines.

 

when looking at prices you also need to keep in mind to look at the model in comparison, not just price based on year.

 

 

Actually T-64 was cheaper than T-72 back then, same with T-64A, more expensive was only T-64B due to it's advanced FCS and 9K112 GLATGM guidance system.

 

f0c75b444254.jpg

 

This is based on Soviet sources.

 

As for problems with engine, these are greatly exaggarated by UVZ propaganda.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

missile of T-72B is inferior as well. Svir only has a range of 4000m, while refleks has a range of 5000m. 

 

Not correct.

 

T-64B/BV uses 9M112 Kobra GLATGM, 9M124 or 9M128 Agona GLATGM, all used radio guidance system 9K112. Evolution of them is Kombat GLATGM that radio guidance replaced by "beam raider" laser guidance like in 9K119 Refleks system. There is also 120mm version of Kombat for NATO standard 120mm smoothbore guns called Konus.

 

T-72B uses 9K120 Svir guidance system for 9M119 Refleks/Invar missile. The missile itself is exactly the same as in case of T-80U/UD and T-90/T-90A 9K119 Refleks guidance system, the only difference is guidance system itself.

 

 

In case of 9K119 Refleks system, the range is 5000m and missile can be launched and guided during movement, in case of 9K120 Svir, tank needs to stop, guidance can't be done during movement, also range is reduced to 4000m.

 

Problem of both systems are sights, both TDP-K1 and 1G46 have limited zoon, so at such long ranges, gunner might not even see tha target properly.

 

 

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Actually T-64 was cheaper than T-72 back then, same with T-64A, more expensive was only T-64B due to it's advanced FCS and 9K112 GLATGM guidance system.

 

f0c75b444254.jpg

 

This is based on Soviet sources.

 

As for problems with engine, these are greatly exaggarated by UVZ propaganda.

 

 

But thats the T72A which  started arriving only by 1979... not the T72 Ural that began production in 1973, which was the one i was specifically referring to in a prior post. T72A has newer FCS, laser rangefinder, and thicker effective armor over the T64A and T72 Ural. So yes i would expect the T72A to be more expensive, especially since T64A production ceased in 1976.

 

If engine problems were truly exaggerated propaganda then the T64 would have been deployed sooner to East Germany.

 

Now since this document is showing the production prices of the T80UD, it means this document would have been from the Late 1980s

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

But thats the T72A which  started arriving only by 1979... not the T72 Ural that began production in 1973, which was the one i was talking about. T72A has newer FCS, laser rangefinder, and thicker effective armor over the T64A and T72 Ural. So yes i would expect the T72A to be more expensive, especially since T64A was no longer in production since 1976.

 

1. T-72A just like T-72 do not have FCS, it's a misconception, both have "sighting system" not a true FCS. T-64 also had just a sighting system with optical rangefinder just like T-72. T-72A and late T-64A both had laser rangefinders, but T-64A in general have a much more advanced "FCS". First tanks with true FCS were T-64B and T-80B.

 

2. Thicker armor of T-72A didn't made it more advanced or didn't offered better protection. T-72A had more or less the same protection levels as T-64A, T-64B, T-80 and T-80B. It's also a misconception that T-80 and T-80B used the same turret as T-64A and T-64B. T-80 and T-80B used the same turret armor as T-72A, which was less advanced than turret armor of T-64A and T-64B. T-80/T-80B and T-72A used so called "sand rods", T-64A and T-64B used "Combination K" which had at leat 3 different variants for turret, first being a cast steel turret structure with aluminium filler, second was cast turret structure with high hardness steel inserts, and third was cast aluminium turret structure with ceramic spheres as inserts.

 

Thanks to this T-64A and T-64B had equivalent protection levels to T-72A and T-80/T-80B but with less weight.

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm

 

Here is rather good article about various types of armor used. In general Andrei's blog about soviet armor is worth to read, as he used official soviet documents... contrary to that UVZ propagandist Khlopotov.

 

Quote

If engine problems were truly exaggerated propaganda then the T64 would have been deployed sooner to East Germany.

 

No, deployment of specific vehicles had it's own schedules, based on how many were manufactured at a time and when crews were ready. T-64 was in principle a completely new revolutionary design, a completely new training system was needed both for crews and maintnance personell. T-64 did not shared any components with it's predecessors which again, maked preparation time longer, it was not an quick and easy transition like in case of crews going from T-54/55 to T-62.

 

Remember that a lot of bad press about T-64 comes from UralVagonZavod and it's propagandists, for decades there is a silent war between UVZ in Nizhny Tagil and KMDB in Kharkiv, and no wonder considering a fact that UVZ for it's own gains, sabotaged all R&D work done by KMDB... a common practice among design bureaus in Soviet Union, concerning massive levels of corruption there.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

1. T-72A just like T-72 do not have FCS, it's a misconception, both have "sighting system" not a true FCS. T-64 also had just a sighting system with optical rangefinder just like T-72. T-72A and late T-64A both had laser rangefinders, but T-64A in general have a much more advanced "FCS". First tanks with true FCS were T-64B and T-80B.

 

2. Thicker armor of T-72A didn't made it more advanced or didn't offered better protection. T-72A had more or less the same protection levels as T-64A, T-64B, T-80 and T-80B. It's also a misconception that T-80 and T-80B used the same turret as T-64A and T-64B. T-80 and T-80B used the same turret armor as T-72A, which was less advanced than turret armor of T-64A and T-64B. T-80/T-80B and T-72A used so called "sand rods", T-64A and T-64B used "Combination K" which had at leat 3 different variants for turret, first being a cast steel turret structure with aluminium filler, second was cast turret structure with high hardness steel inserts, and third was cast aluminium turret structure with ceramic spheres as inserts.

 

Thanks to this T-64A and T-64B had equivalent protection levels to T-72A and T-80/T-80B but with less weight.

 

 

No, deployment of specific vehicles had it's own schedules, based on how many were manufactured at a time and when crews were ready. T-64 was in principle a completely new revolutionary design, a completely new training system was needed both for crews and maintnance personell. T-64 did not shared any components with it's predecessors which again, maked preparation time longer, it was not an quick and easy transition like in case of crews going from T-54/55 to T-62.

 

Remember that a lot of bad press about T-64 comes from UralVagonZavod and it's propagandists, for decades there is a silent war between UVZ in Nizhny Tagil and KMDB in Kharkiv, and no wonder considering a fact that UVZ for it's own gains, sabotaged all R&D work done by KMDB... a common practice among design bureaus in Soviet Union, concerning massive levels of corruption there.

 

 

Yes perfectly aware that earlier tanks had optical rangefinders, or earlier cases prior to the introduction of the T64 lack there of. I was just listing it as a new features,  yes the  inter Design Bureau squabbles, competition and bureaucracy had  impacted soviet tank design as well as the fact that ended up with them fielding 3 different new generation tanks at the same time.

 

However that doesn't change the fact that the document lacks the T72 ural  price to make  fair comparison. Granted the price difference wasnt big, fairly mininmal but from what i read,  T72 Ural was still nonetheless cheaper than the T64. Ultimately it isnt jsut about production prices, but the technology. T72 systems more simplistic and easier to use than the T64A, which was described by  a examining engineer, almost as complicated as a Jet Fighter. Obviously an exaggeration,  but T72 no doubt  would be  easier  to train new crews or to transition from T55 & T62, than to the T64. This is more important for a nation like Russia that relied on  short timer conscripts.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect T-72 would still be more expensive than T-64, why, well it needs more steel to be manufactured, due to larger roadwheels, and also hull is slightly larger than that of T-64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a funny fact. UVZ initially had problems with manufacturing T-72's, due to lack of proper tooling and skilled workforce. That was also one of the reasons why a T-72 and T-72M (export variant) didn't had a composite armor in turret.

 

If my memory serves well they had even problems with manufacturing roadwheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Actually a funny fact. UVZ initially had problems with manufacturing T-72's, due to lack of proper tooling and skilled workforce. That was also one of the reasons why a T-72 and T-72M (export variant) didn't had a composite armor in turret.

 

If my memory serves well they had even problems with manufacturing roadwheels.

 

well i guess we should be glad SB models the T72M in the way it was intended to be produced, not one of those examples with poorer quality standard builds, with mechanical issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-72/T-72M turret protection in general was considered adequate against KE threats of the time when it was fielded, however it's protection against CE threats was considered as completely inadequate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Problem of both systems are sights, both TDP-K1 and 1G46 have limited zoon, so at such long ranges, gunner might not even see tha target properly.

 

TPD-K1 has 8x magnification, 1G42 of T-64B has 9x magnification, 

1G46 has 12x magnification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

27 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

 snip

 

 

yes.

 

though in SB we only have 1 variant  of the T64A and T64B represented. ( ofc non crewable)

 

the T64A is the last model production, the model 1975, since it has the 2a46 cannon, whilst the T64B is a model 1981.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

yes.

 

though in SB we only have 1 variant  of the T64A and T64B represented. ( ofc non crewable)

 

the T64A is the last model production, the model 1975, since it has the 2a46 cannon, whilst the T64B is a model 1981.

 

i know. i made the models, and did all of the research.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

42 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

 

TPD-K1 has 8x magnification, 1G42 of T-64B has 9x magnification, 

1G46 has 12x magnification. 

 

Yup, still even with 1G46 it might be problematic at longer ranges. It's paradox that modern variants of M1 have sights better suited to use GLATGM's at longer ranges than Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tanks. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

 

i know. i made the models, and did all of the research.

 

Well sorry your title lists as a senior member, i  assumed you were just a forum goer & knowledgeable tank buff  .had no way of knowing who you really were.

 

 On other sims or game forums, indivdual directly assiociated or employed with a given company  normally have a unique title displayed depending on the job they fulfill as to avoid any such confusion.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now